We know about the vote of no confidence and strike in at the City Colleges. Check out some other articles related to the next CSU president. (And feel free to add any others you know of to this blog).
http://www.bettergov.org:80/bga_in_news_20070503_01.asp
http://www.bettergov.org:80/bga_in_news_20070503_03.asp
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Our Victory Today
So after all of the shouts, recriminations, tears etc., I finally got it. We won! Today was a victory. It was a victory for the campus community. This single event has galvanized the university in a way that no other events have in the last twenty years. Of course our adversaries will choose to believe that the summer will blunt the sharpness of the faculty and students. My warning to us is to not let the summer pass without our activity. More will follow about what we are doing, what is needed and what is possible. You may be as disappointed as I am AND I am inspired to fight for this university and what it can become. I am ready to continue to create the diamond that is CSU with all of the heat and pressure that can be brought to bear.
We Should Be Proud
The main thing that happened at the BOT meeting was that students and faculty asserted themselves with a strong voice. I believe we may be changing the culture of CSU in a positive way. We may be putting an end to a mentality of doing as we are told which has dominated the campus since I have been here (22 years). When their decision to appoint Watson was greeted with a chorus of boos and angry shouts, I was proud of all of us.
I did disagree with Phillip's speech which restored order. I thought the disorder was positive and presented a teaching moment. If we continue to disrupt the BOT's "order," what can the BOT do in the face of united faculty, students, and even administrators? Have the campus cops eject us? It would have been interesting to see them try to do that. Or they might have been forced to call Chicago cops. That would have been excellent. It would have made a profound point about political power (I write this as a political philosopher and as a communist activist). In state-level class societies based on exploitation of the working classes, the rulers' power in the end rests on the power of police, on their ability to organize force. When, as happened at that meeting, they have no support from their "constituents," that is all they have going for them. So they must use the police. A very positive lesson that--when push comes to shove--this is what capitalist "democracy" really is!!
Finally, I did think it was important to call the BOT racist. Some have said to me that the word is inflammatory. I believe that the word is accurate. White students would almost certainly not be similarly disrespected nor would their school be treated as a patronage pit. The fact that the BOT members are also almost all identified as black is irrelevant. Their only hope is that we are fooled by racial identities to think they can't be racist because they are black. They are the racists, and we should say so. We should demand that our students and our school be treated with the same respect as others: there should be UPass; the bookstore should be open to students to get their texts; the financial aid should be organized to eliminate the long lines; the classrooms should be maintained.
We have begun to stand up and fight. Let us continue.
I did disagree with Phillip's speech which restored order. I thought the disorder was positive and presented a teaching moment. If we continue to disrupt the BOT's "order," what can the BOT do in the face of united faculty, students, and even administrators? Have the campus cops eject us? It would have been interesting to see them try to do that. Or they might have been forced to call Chicago cops. That would have been excellent. It would have made a profound point about political power (I write this as a political philosopher and as a communist activist). In state-level class societies based on exploitation of the working classes, the rulers' power in the end rests on the power of police, on their ability to organize force. When, as happened at that meeting, they have no support from their "constituents," that is all they have going for them. So they must use the police. A very positive lesson that--when push comes to shove--this is what capitalist "democracy" really is!!
Finally, I did think it was important to call the BOT racist. Some have said to me that the word is inflammatory. I believe that the word is accurate. White students would almost certainly not be similarly disrespected nor would their school be treated as a patronage pit. The fact that the BOT members are also almost all identified as black is irrelevant. Their only hope is that we are fooled by racial identities to think they can't be racist because they are black. They are the racists, and we should say so. We should demand that our students and our school be treated with the same respect as others: there should be UPass; the bookstore should be open to students to get their texts; the financial aid should be organized to eliminate the long lines; the classrooms should be maintained.
We have begun to stand up and fight. Let us continue.
Chicago State Community College
R.I.P. Chicago State University.
It did feel very much like a funeral this morning on the fourth floor of the New Academic Library just before CSU's five-member Board of Trustees (two with expired terms) announced its decision to hand over the leadership to their much favored local candidate Wayne Watson. Dr. Yan Searcy even used the word "funeral" in his very eloquent statement to the Board of Trustees.
And like most funerals, dirty little secrets start to come out. After being abjured by name by several members of the campus community, Reverend Finney finally let loose at the end of the morning with the reporters. If anyone was playing the race card here, he said, "it was the white-controlled media." Other comments going around town are painting the protests to the search process at CSU as fostered by a few disgruntled "white faculty." Hmmm. I wonder where those ideas started?
Most distressingly absent at the funeral this morning was the new alleged "reformer" Governor Quinn who could not muster up the courage to send a condolence card to the CSU Faculty Senate in response to their plea for the Governor's intervention in the entirely flawed presidential search process. Reverend Finney has obviously been very busy the past few weeks and according to a few of the commentators this morning "got" to the Governor. With what? Promises of southside (i.e. black) votes? At any rate, there are many southsiders and others on campus who do not vote with their skin, Governor Quinn. You might want to consider just whom you did alienate. I believe Governor Quinn needs to hear from us again, let him know that he's not fooling anyone with pious statements of integrity unless he acts. If you have supported the actions of the faculty, staff and students who have called the hiring of Wayne Watson a farce that is essentially going to make Chicago State the crown jewel in Watson's community college system, voice your opinion. The Governor's Office info: http://www.illinois.gov/GOV/contactthegovernor.cfm
And stay posted. There is more to come...
Sprint to mediocrity
So today was a memorable day. There was shouting, anger, tears, disbelief and finally an admission by the bored trustees that the process was fixed. The candidate whose name emerged a year and a half ago was officially named. The meeting could be summarized by the words of the University President, oh I mean Board Chairman, Leon Finney. This is “not a choice between two great options but a choice between two lesser options.” No truer words have ever been spoken. The search process notwithstanding, the university is now in a headlong sprint to mediocrity. The decision of the bored trustees signals the death knell for this institution. Of course the optimists and apologists will shout 'give him a chance' and some faculty will go into exile and others into hibernation. Other faculty will resist this sprint to mediocrity which includes the risk of losing our NCA accreditation due to the BOT's incompetence and ineptness. When I see students shedding tears about the Board's choice to appoint a political insider, I am angry. Our students have invested so much in changing their lives and to have the thieves on the BOT act with the petulance and impunity that they have displayed is galling. The theft that I refer to is the stealing of dreams and aspirations. This university needed a leader not a political hack of the Daley machine. When the post mortem is done on this chapter of our university history, I am sure there will be enough blame to go around for the institution's demise. Through all of this I got the briefest of glimpses into the South African liberation struggle against apartheid. My South African friends who lived through this have tried to convey what it meant. I am beginning to understand at the most rudimentary level what that oppression cost and the lives that were devastated by the oppression. The army has not been mobilized yet. And we, the faculty, are the army. It is time to mobilize and do the next right thing which is protect the academic integrity of this institution. We owe that to our students, the community and ourselves.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The next chapter....
So it seems the squeaky wheel will get the grease and I will be squeaking for a while longer. I am going to be as squeaky as the BOT is arrogant in ignoring the wishes for collaboration of the university community. We must be working in some bizzaro world where a group of grossly incompetent and malfeasant Blago appointees can single handedly ruin the reputation of the university. The truly sad part is that after the board members offer a five year contract to one of the applicants, we will watch the university become open admission with less than a 5% graduation rate. Maybe we will have been downgraded to a junior college by then. There will be complaints and memory loss because no one will remember that something could have and should have been done today. The truly sad part is that this grossly incompetent board will single handedly devalue the degree of every graduate of this university by violating their own regulations and governing policy around shared participation. Their flawed process led to unqualified political insiders who need their sycophants to speak to how wonderful they are because their records are so threadbare. If there was ever a need for real leadership, which neither of these two candidates displayed, it is now. Faculty and students displayed leadership. Now it's time for the state's chief executive to lead. Or we will be led down a path that we won't want to visit. And this is what it has come down to.
What Do We Hope to Accomplish?
The answer to my question may seem obvious: we want a better environment in which to teach and in which our students can learn. The quality of our leadership, it may seem, is the most important determinant of the quality of the learning and teaching environments.
I disagree. I believe that what most improves our learning and teaching environments is our fight to make these better. For, as one of us suggested about last Wednesday's rally, when we fight against the trustees' turning CSU into a patronage warehouse for Chicago insiders, we teach the most important lessons. When our students engage in the same struggle, they teach us. That is, I disagree with the spirit (as I understand it) or Steve's last post and also, I believe, with some of what Phillip and Corday have written. The important thing is less what the governor does than what we do.
I do not believe that better leadership from either the BOT or from the administration is what we should be fighting for. These leadership groups will operate from the imperatives which are built into the meaning of operating a university in the current social and political environment. An example may help. Several years ago I was involved, along with other members of Progressive Labor Party and many community activists, in a struggle centered on the Chicago Public Schools, particularly the increasing segregation within the schools, the turning of all-black public high schools into punitive warehouses with diminishing opportunity for students, and the obvious racism of these trends. I asked a CSU administrator to join me in publicizing a forum at Chicago State where we would discuss and expose these problems in the CPS and the role of the Vallas leadership in creating them. The administrator declined, saying that the university depended on a cordial relationship with the CPS leadership to enhance teaching opportunities for our graduates.
Note the implications of that reply. First, that administrator meant well, trying to do the best by the students in the current social and educational climate. But that climate was increasingly racist for black and latin students in the schools. So in pursuing the interests of our students in obtaining jobs in an increasingly racist public school system, the administrator would not challenge that growing racial segregation and racial disadvantage and injustice. Langston Hughes noted exactly the same phenomenon in the HBCs he visited in the South in the 1930s.
The point of this apparent digression is that our struggle must be a broader struggle for social justice. The current political leadership in the city and state will not advance that struggle. That job is our job and our students' job. We are the leadership we need.
I disagree. I believe that what most improves our learning and teaching environments is our fight to make these better. For, as one of us suggested about last Wednesday's rally, when we fight against the trustees' turning CSU into a patronage warehouse for Chicago insiders, we teach the most important lessons. When our students engage in the same struggle, they teach us. That is, I disagree with the spirit (as I understand it) or Steve's last post and also, I believe, with some of what Phillip and Corday have written. The important thing is less what the governor does than what we do.
I do not believe that better leadership from either the BOT or from the administration is what we should be fighting for. These leadership groups will operate from the imperatives which are built into the meaning of operating a university in the current social and political environment. An example may help. Several years ago I was involved, along with other members of Progressive Labor Party and many community activists, in a struggle centered on the Chicago Public Schools, particularly the increasing segregation within the schools, the turning of all-black public high schools into punitive warehouses with diminishing opportunity for students, and the obvious racism of these trends. I asked a CSU administrator to join me in publicizing a forum at Chicago State where we would discuss and expose these problems in the CPS and the role of the Vallas leadership in creating them. The administrator declined, saying that the university depended on a cordial relationship with the CPS leadership to enhance teaching opportunities for our graduates.
Note the implications of that reply. First, that administrator meant well, trying to do the best by the students in the current social and educational climate. But that climate was increasingly racist for black and latin students in the schools. So in pursuing the interests of our students in obtaining jobs in an increasingly racist public school system, the administrator would not challenge that growing racial segregation and racial disadvantage and injustice. Langston Hughes noted exactly the same phenomenon in the HBCs he visited in the South in the 1930s.
The point of this apparent digression is that our struggle must be a broader struggle for social justice. The current political leadership in the city and state will not advance that struggle. That job is our job and our students' job. We are the leadership we need.
Bring the Pressure
As several posts here have mentioned, Gov. Quinn will only likely act if he feels pressure to do so. As Yan Searcy pointed out at the rally, CSU is a STATE university, so we need to make our voices heard in as many locations of state government as possible. To that end, I would encourage all faculty, staff, and students to contact their state representatives and their state senators (after you have contacted the governor’s office). If you don’t know who your state rep or state senator is, there’s an online tool called “civic footprint” that will give you the names of each with links to their websites, based on your home address. If you do know your state rep and state senator’s names, then you can get their contact information on the Illinois state government website – for state reps go here, for state senators go here.
Now, what should we do when we contact our state reps and state senators? Well, the first thing I would say is talk with them about the current situation at Chicago State and what you would like to see done. From my perspective, I plan to ask my state rep and state senator to contact Gov. Quinn’s office on my behalf and request that he act upon the letter that was submitted by the CSU Faculty Senate which requested that the governor: (1) remove all members of the current Board of Trustees, (2) implement a campus wide process to suggest future Board members to the governor for his consideration, and (3) enjoin the existing Board of Trustees from executing any contract relating to the hiring of a university president until such time as a new Board of Trustees be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Illinois State Senate.
We need to make it clear to all of our state-wide elected officials that this is an issue that affects the entire state -- again, we are a state university. If any state official has a CSU faculty member, staff member, or student in her/his district, then this is their problem too. We need to enlist as many allies in state government as we can to encourage Gov. Quinn to act quickly. Remember, the Board of Trustees will be meeting on Wednesday morning to vote on one of the two “candidates” (or should we say “heirs apparent”). Please contact the Governor’s office, your state senator, and your state representative on Monday or Tuesday.
Steve Rowe
Now, what should we do when we contact our state reps and state senators? Well, the first thing I would say is talk with them about the current situation at Chicago State and what you would like to see done. From my perspective, I plan to ask my state rep and state senator to contact Gov. Quinn’s office on my behalf and request that he act upon the letter that was submitted by the CSU Faculty Senate which requested that the governor: (1) remove all members of the current Board of Trustees, (2) implement a campus wide process to suggest future Board members to the governor for his consideration, and (3) enjoin the existing Board of Trustees from executing any contract relating to the hiring of a university president until such time as a new Board of Trustees be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Illinois State Senate.
We need to make it clear to all of our state-wide elected officials that this is an issue that affects the entire state -- again, we are a state university. If any state official has a CSU faculty member, staff member, or student in her/his district, then this is their problem too. We need to enlist as many allies in state government as we can to encourage Gov. Quinn to act quickly. Remember, the Board of Trustees will be meeting on Wednesday morning to vote on one of the two “candidates” (or should we say “heirs apparent”). Please contact the Governor’s office, your state senator, and your state representative on Monday or Tuesday.
Steve Rowe
Saturday, April 25, 2009
A bit of hope
So it looks like the Tribune editorial board is the wind behind us. Check out their editorial in today's print and online editions. Here is a link to March to Mediocrity. If you support the actions of the faculty, staff and students, call the Governor's office and voice your opinion. More to follow.
Measuring the Board of Trustees by their own standards
A friend of mine happens to be the president of a college on the west coast and put me on to the website of an organization known as the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges http://www.agb.org/. It provides good reading for anyone interested in what trustees at public institutions should strive to be. I've excerpted a few sections here.
The complaints over the past two months about Chicago State's Board of Trustees are not without foundation. If you are still unconvinced by the arguments that have been put forward in this blog or by the students and the more vocal members on campus or by the resignation of the Search Advisory Committee or the petitions by the faculty and the resolution by the Faculty Senate, try applying some of these qualities outlined by the AGB to our current Trustees. See how they measure up by these outside objective standards.
Re: "Public institutions" [note to the BOT: you do not "own" Chicago State University, it is not yours to give away to friends or political allies who think they are entitled to it].
Public trustees serve colleges and universities that are “owned” by citizens (not government bodies or officials); they are responsible for acting on behalf of the public as their individual consciences and judgment dictate. The citizen board--regardless of whether its members are appointed or elected--has emerged as the best alternative to governmental control of higher education. Public institution trustees stand at the center of a system of checks and balances that permits them to delegate their authority--but not their responsibility--to their chief executives, faculty, and students
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1043 “Public Institutions”
Regarding "Governance at Public Institutions" [n.b. consultation]
Trustees should understand three important values and traditions within the academy: academic freedom, institutional independence, and consultation with affected parties in institutional decision making. It ultimately is the responsibility of the trustees, with the help of their chief executive and other academic leaders, to define each value or tradition as it applies to their institution in contemporary society.
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1043 "Governance at Public Institutions"
Apply the following points from the AGB's discussion on "The Commitment of Trusteeship" to CSU's Board of Trustees. Do you think they measure up? Have they scrupulously put aside conflicts of interest (like friendships with the 2 presidential candidates?) Have they led the university with large contributions of money? Most notably, look at item #6. Have they truly consulted the university constituencies in their conduct of campus business? Have they understood the idea emphasized here that a university is not a corporation that can be ruled in a heavy-handed, top-down, authoritarian manner, like a business corporation?
The following questions have been adapted from “The Commitment to Trusteeship," an essay written for AGB in 1990 by governance expert and retired college president John W. Nason.
3. Have you any conflicts of interest? Trusteeship today is more vulnerable to potential conflicts of interest than in the past. Boards have ways of addressing and resolving conflicts of interest—chiefly by recording them in advance and by allowing individual trustees to excuse themselves from decisions that may present potential conflicts of interest. Such conflicts may lend themselves to misinterpretation. Prospective trustees must calculate all risks.
4. Are you prepared financially to support the institution, and are you prepared to ask others to give money? This is a double-barreled question: Trustees must be prepared to carry out both tasks effectively. The board must provide leadership in fund-raising. Independent college and university trustees should give according to their financial means. Capital campaigns especially must begin with the generous donations of board members.
5. Are you prepared to be a public advocate for the institution? Sooner or later, a chief executive will need the public support of his or her board; trustees must be prepared to defend their institutions. Trustees must support controversial or unpopular policies, decisions, or actions. Institutions must be free to decide what and how to teach; who will teach; whom to admit; what research to conduct; and what values the institution embraces. Trustees must be prepared to use their personal status and goodwill to defend their institution’s integrity and reputation.
6. Are you prepared to work within the conventional framework of academic governance? The academic world differs from the corporate world in several important respects. Most notably, important policy decisions are the result of consultation among the board, the chief executive, and the faculty, among others. This process can be unsettling to executives who are accustomed to unilateral decision making. Nevertheless, most institutions operate under some rubric of shared governance, and trustees must learn to accommodate decentralized decision making.
Additionally, presidents have less authority than the business CEOs. Rather than dictating orders, academic presidents often lead by persuading others to follow. Trustees need to recognize the importance of the president’s role as mediator and provide sufficient support. Further, boards of trustees remain more actively engaged in the institution than boards of most for-profit enterprises. Trustees must ask questions, challenge recommendations, and explore alternatives.
Finally, trustees must be prepared to accept group decisions, even when they disagree with them. And while trustees should not shy away from voicing strong convictions and independent judgments, once a group decision has been made a good trustee will support it. If not, he or she should be prepared to resign.
7. Do you understand the full range of college or university trusteeship?In general, three personal qualities identify the successful trustee. First, a trustee should be curious about every aspect of the institution’s operations and be willing to ask questions. Second, a trustee must tolerate ambiguity and be able to function effectively in an environment where complex questions preclude simple answers. Third, a trustee must have a sense of humor—that is, a sense of proportion and perspective, and a realistic view of one’s own limitations. It’s a great job.
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=334
So, at the most basic level, by the standards of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, do you think CSU's Board of Trustees understands what a public institution of higher learning is and their role in it? Or, have they failed? Call or write Governor Quinn and let him know.
The complaints over the past two months about Chicago State's Board of Trustees are not without foundation. If you are still unconvinced by the arguments that have been put forward in this blog or by the students and the more vocal members on campus or by the resignation of the Search Advisory Committee or the petitions by the faculty and the resolution by the Faculty Senate, try applying some of these qualities outlined by the AGB to our current Trustees. See how they measure up by these outside objective standards.
Re: "Public institutions" [note to the BOT: you do not "own" Chicago State University, it is not yours to give away to friends or political allies who think they are entitled to it].
Public trustees serve colleges and universities that are “owned” by citizens (not government bodies or officials); they are responsible for acting on behalf of the public as their individual consciences and judgment dictate. The citizen board--regardless of whether its members are appointed or elected--has emerged as the best alternative to governmental control of higher education. Public institution trustees stand at the center of a system of checks and balances that permits them to delegate their authority--but not their responsibility--to their chief executives, faculty, and students
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1043 “Public Institutions”
Regarding "Governance at Public Institutions" [n.b. consultation]
Trustees should understand three important values and traditions within the academy: academic freedom, institutional independence, and consultation with affected parties in institutional decision making. It ultimately is the responsibility of the trustees, with the help of their chief executive and other academic leaders, to define each value or tradition as it applies to their institution in contemporary society.
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1043 "Governance at Public Institutions"
Apply the following points from the AGB's discussion on "The Commitment of Trusteeship" to CSU's Board of Trustees. Do you think they measure up? Have they scrupulously put aside conflicts of interest (like friendships with the 2 presidential candidates?) Have they led the university with large contributions of money? Most notably, look at item #6. Have they truly consulted the university constituencies in their conduct of campus business? Have they understood the idea emphasized here that a university is not a corporation that can be ruled in a heavy-handed, top-down, authoritarian manner, like a business corporation?
The following questions have been adapted from “The Commitment to Trusteeship," an essay written for AGB in 1990 by governance expert and retired college president John W. Nason.
3. Have you any conflicts of interest? Trusteeship today is more vulnerable to potential conflicts of interest than in the past. Boards have ways of addressing and resolving conflicts of interest—chiefly by recording them in advance and by allowing individual trustees to excuse themselves from decisions that may present potential conflicts of interest. Such conflicts may lend themselves to misinterpretation. Prospective trustees must calculate all risks.
4. Are you prepared financially to support the institution, and are you prepared to ask others to give money? This is a double-barreled question: Trustees must be prepared to carry out both tasks effectively. The board must provide leadership in fund-raising. Independent college and university trustees should give according to their financial means. Capital campaigns especially must begin with the generous donations of board members.
5. Are you prepared to be a public advocate for the institution? Sooner or later, a chief executive will need the public support of his or her board; trustees must be prepared to defend their institutions. Trustees must support controversial or unpopular policies, decisions, or actions. Institutions must be free to decide what and how to teach; who will teach; whom to admit; what research to conduct; and what values the institution embraces. Trustees must be prepared to use their personal status and goodwill to defend their institution’s integrity and reputation.
6. Are you prepared to work within the conventional framework of academic governance? The academic world differs from the corporate world in several important respects. Most notably, important policy decisions are the result of consultation among the board, the chief executive, and the faculty, among others. This process can be unsettling to executives who are accustomed to unilateral decision making. Nevertheless, most institutions operate under some rubric of shared governance, and trustees must learn to accommodate decentralized decision making.
Additionally, presidents have less authority than the business CEOs. Rather than dictating orders, academic presidents often lead by persuading others to follow. Trustees need to recognize the importance of the president’s role as mediator and provide sufficient support. Further, boards of trustees remain more actively engaged in the institution than boards of most for-profit enterprises. Trustees must ask questions, challenge recommendations, and explore alternatives.
Finally, trustees must be prepared to accept group decisions, even when they disagree with them. And while trustees should not shy away from voicing strong convictions and independent judgments, once a group decision has been made a good trustee will support it. If not, he or she should be prepared to resign.
7. Do you understand the full range of college or university trusteeship?In general, three personal qualities identify the successful trustee. First, a trustee should be curious about every aspect of the institution’s operations and be willing to ask questions. Second, a trustee must tolerate ambiguity and be able to function effectively in an environment where complex questions preclude simple answers. Third, a trustee must have a sense of humor—that is, a sense of proportion and perspective, and a realistic view of one’s own limitations. It’s a great job.
http://www.agb.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=334
So, at the most basic level, by the standards of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, do you think CSU's Board of Trustees understands what a public institution of higher learning is and their role in it? Or, have they failed? Call or write Governor Quinn and let him know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)